o 






'^^ "' ^r ,.. "^v 











.^^ 


-v^. 




y'%. 






'■I 

- ^ r 



//iJi' . 



V 



^^ 

.. - . .^ ^v?" ^ ... ....... 

''° V'. . ■ ^. \^''' *v^^',^" -X^" ''"'/' ^ . .\' 

,/\ ■ 'y\ '$m- /\ \ 



"^'■^V (^:» 

.^^ 
■i.- 



.,1- ^0• 



^ 


0^ 


Off 


■ * ^L^ 


'^^ 


- 1 






O 
"^ 



A'^ ,.„ ^^ '" ^^ 



.0> % 



<^ 



•^ 






^"^.^. 












-^^^0^ 
Ao^ 



.^' 



<3''^^ 






<r\ -/.it;/-'-,' 



^-71, 



.-N 



^^ 


/ 











4 o^ 






o. 












0' 









-f 












,'^ 






>. 



•■>, -^'-^Ki'.^^ ■ 



.0 






,-^ 



o 



A 






,-^" 



.0^ 









• 0' 



'^.c9 















-Jv' 









k\' 



.0 



'^_ 



^. 






> 



■1^ V 



.0' 






The Progress of American Independence. 



A PAPE R 



READ BEFORE THE 



New York Historical Society 

Tuesday, April 2, 1889, 

I BY THE i^ ' 

HON. GEORGE S. BOUTWELL. 




N£JV YORK: 

PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY, 

1889. 



fff': 



The Progress of A m eric a. y Ixdepexdence. 



A PAPER 



READ BEFORE THli 



New York Historical Society 



Tuesday, April 2, 1889, 



HON. GEORGE S^ BOUTWELL. 




NBIV YORK: 

PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY. 

1889. 



V/j ■ \'j • V/v' 



7^' 



At a stated meeting of the New York Historical Society, held in 
its Hall, on Tuesday Evening, April 2, 1889, 

The Hon. GEORGE S. Boutwell read the paper of the evening, 
on ' The Progress of American hi dependence.'' 

On its conclusion the Librarian submitted the following resolution, 
which was adopted unanimously. 

Resolved, That the thanks of the Society be and hereby are tendered 
to the Hon. George S. Boutwell, for the admirable address read 
this evening, and that a copy be requested for the Archives of the So- 
ciety with permission to print. 

Extract from the Minutes, 

Andrew Warner, 

Recording Secretary. 



Officers of the Society, 1889. 



PRESIDENT, 

JOHN ALSOP KING. 

FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT, 

JOHN A. W E E K E S . 

SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT, 

JOHN S. KENNEDY. 

FOREIGN CORRESPONDING SECRETARY, 

JOHN B I G E L O \V . 

DOMESTIC CORRESPONDING SECRETARY, 

EDWARD F. DE EANCEY 

RECORDING SECRETARY, 

ANDRE \V WARNER. 



TREASURER, 

ROBERT SCHELL 



LIBRARIAN, 

CHARLES I S H A M 



EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 



FIRST CLASS FOR ONE YEAR, ENDING 1890. 

EDWARD F. DE LANCEY, WILLARD PARKER, M.D., 

DANIEL PARISH, Jr. 

SECOND CLASS FOR TWO YEARS, ENDING 189I. 

BENJAMIN H. FIELD, FREDERIC GALLATIN, 

CHARLES H. RUSSELL, Jr. 

THIRD CLASS FOR THREE YEARS, ENDING 1892. 

JOHN S. KENNEDY, GEORGE W. VANDERBILT, 

GEORGE H. MOORE, LL.D. 

FOURTH CLASS — FOR FOUR YEARS, ENDING 1 893. 

JOHN A. WEEKES, JOHN VV. C. LEVERIDGE. 

JOHN A. WEEKES, Chairman, 
DANIEL PARISH, Jr., Secretary. 

[The President, Recording Secretary, Treasurer, and Librarian 
are members, ex-offi.cio, of the Executive Committee.] 



COMMITTEE ON THE FINE ARTS. 

DANIEL HUNTINGTON, JACOB B. MOORE, 

ANDREW WARNER, HENRY C. STURGES, 

JOHN A. WEEKES, GEORGE W. VANDERBILT. 

DANIEL HUNTINGTON, Chairman, 
ANDREW WARNER, Secretary. 

[The President, Librarian, and Chairman of the Executive Com- 
mittee are members, ex-ojfficio, of the Committee on the Fine Arts.] 



THE PROGRESS OF AMERICAN INDEPEN- 
DENCE. 



My acquaintance with public assemblies has been too inti- 
mate to permit me to rest in the illusion that an historical 
subject can be presented attractively. It has, however, oc- 
curred to me that to those of us who participated in or were 
witnesses of the bloody contest through which the nation 
passed in the years 1861-2-3-4 and 5, an hour might be spent 
profitably in an examination into the nature of a struggle 
with which our own experience is intimately connected. 
The analogies of history are numerous and it is an advantage 
to trace them. There is not a chapter which does not light 
our own paths and illustrate the tendencies of our common 
nature. We may thus see the same passions developed in 
different ages, and distinct epochs marked by similar events. 
The spirit of tyranny in some and resistance to tyranny 
in others, slavery and the love of freedom are the charac- 
teristics of every age and people. In no country or age have 
these characteristics been more clearly exhibited than within 
the limits of the United States since the landing of the Pil- 
grims in 1620. The events which illustrate these character- 
istics may be comprehended in one phrase. The Progress of 
A merican Independenee. 

It is my purpose to pass in review the leading facts and 
events that occurred previous to the Revolutionary War 
which show or tend to show the growth and power of the 
spirit of independence ; the development of that spirit, its 
influence in that memorable struggle, and I shall then ask 
you to consider the position of the American Republic in the 



6 The Progress of American Iiidcpcjidcnce. 

family of nations with some reference to our duties, and to 
our possibilities in the future. 

In passing I hope to disabuse the pubhc mind in some 
degree of the degrading error that the rate of taxation, 
whether burdensome or Hght, imposed by the British Parha- 
ment had any considerable part in producing the Revolu- 
tionary War. 

And I trust that I may also do something in aid of a cor- 
rect understanding of the theory of representation which was 
maintained by our ancestors in their contest with the King 
and Parliament of Great Britain. In pursuing this plan I 
purpose to note some of the facts in our colonial history cal- 
culated to illustrate our legal relations to the mother country, 
which I assume were relations of equality and not of political 
inferiority to the people of England. 

It is an accepted opinion, common if not general, that as 
long as the British Parliament legislated wisely for the Ameri- 
can Colonies the right was not questioned, and that the op- 
pressive character of the Stamp Act and the tax acts from 
1764 to 1774 led to the Declaration of Independence. The 
character of these acts contributed to the formal Declaration 
of July 4, 1776, but the principles of that Declaration had 
been before and often asserted. Moreover, the right of Par- 
liament to legislate for the Colonies had been constantly de- 
nied from the first, although the authority of the king had 
never been questioned until he allied himself with the Parlia- 
ment and aided that body in establishing its jurisdiction over 
America. The Declaration was against the king and one of 
the facts submitted to a candid world was this : " He has 
combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign 
to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws : giving 
his assent to their acts of pretended legislation." 

The common consent of men accords to the Declaration 
of American Independence the first place among the events 
which followed the discovery of this continent. 

The adventurers from the South of Europe of the fifteenth, 
sixteenth, and even of the seventeenth centuries sought for 
fields of gold beneath skies of perpetual summer. 



TJie Progress of American Independence. / 

Of hardy enterprise there was but h'ttle, and of faith in 
the organization of great States there was none. Columbus 
had been a beggar at the foot of thrones for the necessary 
means for a voyage of discovery, and when the existence of 
the hew world had been demonstrated a century passed be- 
fore England established a single colony. 

And even then the colonists went forth to lay the founda- 
tions of an Empire without the benediction of the mother 
countr)'. It seems to have been the chief object of the king 
to secure a portion of the products of the mines to his own 
use and for this he stipulated in the charters which he 
granted. 

The most erroneous ideas existed concerning the extent 
and character of this continent. The royal charters were 
wildly spread over vast territories from sea to sea and the 
early maps illustrate the ignorance of the settlers. At the 
commencement of the Revolutionary War the territory east 
of the AUeghanies and the Great Lakes had been explored, 
but the vast region to the West was unknown. 

Colonization, as the basis of new and great States, was not 
the original idea of any European government, and the 
Colonies had their origin in the cupidity of rulers, the hope of 
gain through new channels of commerce and the unquench- 
able thirst for freedom in political and religious affairs. Ot 
all the Colonies which constituted, finally, the thirteen States 
of this Union, one only, Georgia, received the aid of the 
Government. 

The others were permitted, not established, oppressed, 
indeed, rather than encouraged. Massachusetts and Virginia 
seem to have early discerned the future greatness of America 
and they laid the foundations of its Empire when they 
asserted their political principles or resisted oppression. 
Said Dr. Franklin, in 1760, " I have long been of opinion 
that the foundations of the future grandeur and stability of the 
British Empire lie in America ; and though like other founda- 
tions they are low and little now, they are nevertheless broad 
and strong enough to support the greatest political structure 
human wisdom ever yet erected." 



8 The Progress of American Lidcpcndcnce. 

And it was upon this idea of the future of England and 
America that Dr. FrankHn acted when ten years later he 
sought to avert a separation through a system of representa- 
tion in the British Parliament. Independence had a slow 
growth. For a century before it was declared it was predicted 
by a few, it was feared by some, but it was not even imagined 
as a possible event by the masses of England and America. 
The remote causes of American Independence are to be 
found in the recognized principles on which the British 
Government rested and in the origin and nature of the 
charters granted to the Colonies. 

In 1764 when the open contest commenced which ended 
in Independence, England had been a limited constitutional 
monarchy for five and a half centuries. 

In those twenty generations, by the labor, blood and 
sacrifices of her nobles and commons she had established a 
system or constitution which marked the limits of royal 
power, prescribed the duties of those in authority and 
measured and asserted the rights of the subject. Not always 
to be sure had the rights of the people been regarded, but 
even under the most tyrannical of the Tudors and profligate 
of the Stuarts they were remembered and in some manner 
asserted. As we shall see in America, so it was in England, 
oppression was the parent of liberty. Said the Nezu York 
Mercury of 1764, " History does not furnish an instance of a 
revolt begun by the people which did not take its rise from 
oppression." 

The same year that the English nobles extorted Magna 
CJiarta from their monarch a decree was obtained in the fourth 
Council of Lateran that " all heretics should be delivered 
over to the civil magistrate to be burned." The year 12 15 is 
marked in the annals of freedom and in the annals of des- 
potism. By the grant o{ Magna CJiarta the natural liberties 
of England obtained a degree of security and" a basis was 
laid for the legal argument of our Fathers in support and 
defence of the Revolutionary War. And until this epoch the 
Papal Power had punished heresy with spiritual weapons only, 
but now it adopted the policy of heathen emperors and 



The Progress of American Independence. 9 

introduced a system of persecutioa which during many years 
dishonored the annals of the CathoHcand Protestant Churches. 
Happily those days are gone and their like can never again 
appear. But it might then have been doubted whether the 
power of Magna CJiarta for good was equal to that of the 
decree of the Council for evil. Time has solved the doubt in 
favor of freedom. Magna CJiarta is the foundation of the 
British Constitution and the precedent to which all who 
inherit, as a birthright, the principles of that Constitution, may 
safely appeal. It is well, however, to observe that the 
British Constitution, Magna CJiarta and all, rest upon the 
theory that every power resided originally in the monarch, 
and that the grants made to the people are but so many 
limitations of his prerogatives, while the modern American 
theory vests all power in the people who by their constitu- 
tions ,delegate such authority to their agents as may be 
exercised, safely, by them. 

The principles of the two systems are opposed to each 
other, most strictly, but as applied by the people of the two 
countries they tend to the same result, — Popular Liberty. 

It is the theory of the American system that the people 
retain in their own hands every power which might be used 
to deprive them of any natural right. Under the British sys- 
tem the people have sought to annul every prerogative which 
might be used against their liberties. 

By Magna CJiarta King John agreed to have a common 
council of the kingdom to " assess an aid, or to assess a scu- 
tage" and the Declaration of Rights of 1688 asserted "that 
levying money for or to the use of the crown by pretence of 
prerogative without grant of Parliament for longer time or in 
any other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is il- 
legal." 

These two acts, one a grant of privileges and the other a 
Declaration of Rights, were acknowledged by the monarchs 
and asserted by the people at various times and they were 
the chief security of every British subject against taxation 
without the consent of his representative. Our ancestors 
claimed to be British subjects although not living within the 



10 The Progress of American Independence. 

Realm. This claim they supported by the language of their 
charters and by a reference to the relations of the Colonies to 
the sovereigns and to the Parliament of England for the pe- 
riod of a century and a half. The charter of Massachusetts 
provided that the inhabitants of the Colony and their children 
should have and enjoy all the liberties and immunities of 
free and natural subjects "as if they and every of them 
were born within the Realm of England," 

Thus sustaining their birthright as British subjects they 
claimed the benefit of the principle of the British Constitution 
that there could be no taxation without representation. The 
ministry and the crown lawyers denied the propriety of a 
literal interpretation of the pledge contained in the charter 
and they contended that it was no more of a fiction to assert 
that America was represented by the English members than 
to say that Manchester or Birmingham was represented by 
the member for Malton. "Why," replied Otis, "why ring 
everlasting changes to the colonists on them ? If they are 
not represented they ought to be. Every man of a sound 
mind should have his vote." 

Of all the leading men of America, Otis and Eranklin only, 
thought it desirable or practicable for the Colonies to be rep- 
resented at Westminster. The popular will inclined to the 
doctrine of the charters, which as interpreted by the people, 
secured to each Colony a representative assembly in which the 
power of taxation was vested, exclusively. Resting upon 
their rights as British subjects the colonists claimed that 
America could be taxed only when and where she was repre- 
sented, and that she could be represented only in her colonial 
assemblies. Their unanswerable argument in fact, though 
not in words was this : "If we are Britons we are entitled to 
the rights of Britons and we cannot be taxed by a body in 
which we are not represented. If we are not British subjects 
then plainly we are beyond the jurisdiction of either king or 
parliament." But they went still further, and while they 
claimed that they were the subjects of the king in his capacity 
as the hereditary ruler of the British Empire, they denied the 
jurisdiction of Parliament in all cases whatsoever. It is true 



The Progress of Ainci'ican Independence. ii 

that for a time they asserted a distinction between internal 
and external taxation, but this distinction yielded, finally, to 
the force of the principle for which they were contending. 
Otis told the people of Boston that the distinction between 
inland taxes and port duties was without foundation, and 
" that the merchants were fools if they submitted any longer 
to the laws restraining their trade, which ought to be free." 

There were three sorts of government in the Colonies, pro- 
prietary, royal and charter. The governments of Massachu- 
setts, Rhode Island and Connecticut were of the latter sort 
and their charters were treated by the colonists as compacts 
between the king and his successors on the one part and the 
governors and their successors on the other part. The pro- 
visions of the charters were the terms of the respective com- 
pacts. By these terms the Parliament had no power over the 
Colonies either with reference to political privileges or to the 
civil rights and duties of the citizens or subjects. In fine the 
colonists went so far as to declare that they were unable to 
understand how the king or the English nation acquired any 
title to the lands described in the charters. They claimed 
that the title derived from the natives, sometimes by the 
colonies in their political character, and sometimes by the 
colonists individually, was the better title, but they main- 
tained that if any title ever vested in the nation it was one of 
the prerogatives of the sovereign. And this doctrine is sup- 
ported by the best writers upon the Constitution of England. 
According to the feudal tenure the king was the original 
proprietor of all the lands of the kingdom, and by thattenure 
he might dispose of them at his sovereign will.* In truth a 
large part of the English nobility held their lands under royal 
grants precisely as the colonists held theirs. It can be as- 
serted with confidence that the right of the mother country, 
over the unoccupied lands of America, whatever that right 
was, resided in the king, and it followed, consequently, that 
the grants made by the monarchs to the colonists were in 

* Lord INIansfield says " Jamaica from the very settling was an English Col- 
ony, luho [sic] under the autiiority of the King planted a vacant island belonging 
to him in riglit of his crown." Campbell v. Hall, Co'wpcr' s Rep. I. 204. 



'12 TJie Pi'ogrcss of American Indcpcnaetice. 

strict conformity to the theory of and practice under the Eng- 
lish Constitution previous to and during the seventeenth cen- 
tury. 

On one occasion King James the First maintained his pre- 
rogatives against the claim of Parhament. The controversy 
arose upon a bill introduced into the House of Commons for 
regulating the American fisheries. " America," said the 
king, " is not annexed to the realm nor within the jurisdiction 
of Parliament ; you have therefore no right to interfere." 
This doctrine so announced by the king became the basis 
of the logical and legal argument made by Samuel Adams in 
the name of the House of Representatives, of Massachusetts, 
in its memorable controversy with the Provincial Governors 
between the years 1764 and 1774. It is not to be under- 
stood, however, that this view was asserted or even accepted 
by all the Colonies, but there are very few facts in the history 
of New England inconsistent with the claim of independence 
of Parliament. The jurisdiction of the Parliament, said the 
New England Colonies, is confined to the English Realm. 
America is not within the Realm. As the king granted to 
you the right of legislation for the Realm of England so has 
he granted to us the right of legislation within and for our 
respective Colonies in America. As the king has granted to 
you lands within the Realm by the feudal tenure, so has he 
granted to us lands without the Realm and by the same ten- 
ure. As the conditions on which you hold your lands are ex- 
pressed \\\ Magna CJiarta the charter of British Liberties, so 
the conditions on which we hold our lands are expressed in our 
several charters which are the charters of American Liberties. 
As the king has agreed that he would not levy an aid 
njr assess a tax upon his subjects within the Realm without 
your consent, so he has agreed that he would not impose a 
tax upon his subjects in America without their consent in 
general assembly met. As the king has and had the right 
to cede a conquered territory witlioutthe consent of the Lords 
and Commons, so he had the right to convey to us the region 
which was acquired without any expense of blood and treas- 
ure to his British subjects. In fine that America is a part 



TJic Progress of American bidependence. 13 

of the dominions of the king of England and his successors 
and owes allegiance to him and them, but it is no more sub- 
ject to the people and Parliament of England than the peo- 
ple and Parliament of England are to the king's Colonies in 
America. 

These doctrines were not announced early nor perhaps 
ever as they may now be presented, but most of the Col- 
onies, when not overborne by arbitrary power were in fact 
independent of Parliament. The Massachusetts Colony in 
one or two instances re-enacted a law of Parliament when 
it became apparent that it would be enforced. Thus they 
protested against the doctrine that Parliament had a right 
to legislate for the Colony. As early as 1634 the General 
Court of Massachusetts resolved that " none but the Gen- 
eral Court hath power to make and establish laws, nor to 
elect and appoint officers, as also to set out the duties and 
powers of said officers," And again, that "none but the 
General Court hath power to raise money and taxes and to 
dispose of lands, viz., to give and confirm proprietaries." 
Says Winthrop in 1640, " Some of our friends wrote to us 
advising to send over some one to solicit for us in Parlia- 
ment, giving us hopes that we might obtain much, but con- 
sulting about it we declined the motion for the considera- 
tion that if we should put ourselves under the protection of 
Parliament we should be subject to all such laws as they 
should make, or at least to such as they might impose on 
us; in which, if they should intend our good, yet it might 
prove very prejudicial to us." 

In 1646 Massachusetts sent deputies to Acadia to make 
a treaty with D'Aulney the P'rench Governor of that Province. 
The instructions say, " We therefore the governor, deputy 
governor, magistrates, and deputies, making the General 
Court of Boston, wherein the supreme pozver and authority 
of this jurisdiction resideth." 

In 1636 the Plymouth Colony resolved that no law was 
valid which had not received the assent of the body of free- 
men, " which is," said they, " according to the free liberties of 
the free born people of England." 



14 The Progress of American Independence. 

In 1650 the Legislature of Maryland passed an act against 
raising money without the consent of the Assembly. The 
Assembly of Rhode Island re-enacted the words of Magna 
Charta ; Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey asserted 
that they "could be touched by no act but of their own 
making," and the Assembly of New Jersey declared that 
the custom house duties were illegal and unconstitutional 
because imposed without its consent. 

In 1661 the General Court of Massachusetts published a 
Declaration of Rights which was only less than a Declaration 
of Independence. They claimed the right to choose their 
own Governor, to admit freemen, to set up all sorts of offi- 
cers, to exercise all powers, legislative, executive and judi- 
cial, to defend themselves by force of arms, to reject any royal 
or parliamentary imposition, prejudicial to the country and 
contrary to any just act of colonial legislation. 

Again in 1678 the colony declared that " the Acts of 
Navigation were an invasion of the rights and privileges of 
the subjects of His Majesty in the colony, they not being rep- 
resented in Parliament." 

" The laws of England," said they, " do not reach Amer- 
ica." 

In 1765 the first Congress of the American Colonies de- 
clared " that it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a 
people and the undoubted rights of Englishmen that no taxes 
be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given per- 
sonally or by their representatives ; that the colonies are not 
and from their local circumstances cannot be represented in 
the House of Commons in Great Britain ; that the only repre- 
sentatives of the people of these Colonies are persons chosen 
therein by themselves, and that no taxes ever have been or 
ever can be constitutionally imposed upon them, but by their 
respective legislatures." 

In the same year said John Adams, " Be it remem- 
bered that liberty must at all hazards be supported. We 
have aright to it derived from our Maker." As the Colonies 
began so they ended — firm in their attachment to the princi- 
ples of self-government. Nor will it be contended by any 



The Progress of Ameriean hidependeiice. 15 

reader of their history that the questions discussed in the 
revolutionary contest were new questions. Their poHcy was 
consistent from first to last. They acknowledged their al- 
legiance to the King of Great Britain, but never for a mo- 
ment did they admit the supremacy of the British Parlia- 
ment. This position was announced, most distinctly, in the 
Declaration of Rights and Liberties adopted by Congress 
October 14, 1774, in which it is said " that the inhabitants of 
the English Colonies in North America, by the immutable 
laws of nature, the principles of the English Constitution, and 
the several charters and compacts have the following rights 
to wit : The right to life, liberty and property, — to the im- 
munities of free and natural born subjects within the realm 
of England, — the exclusive right of taxation and the inestima- 
ble privilege of being tried by the peers of the vicinage ac- 
cording to the common law of England." They also declared 
that their rights had been violated by the presence of a 
standing arni)^ without their consent, and by the repeated 
attempts of Parliament to exercise jurisdiction over them. 
This manifesto was typical of the Declaration of Independ- 
ence. 

Thus from the system of feudalism were deduced those 
doctrines and principles of liberty which gave to the Colo- 
nies an historical, moral and legal claim to their indepen- 
dence, and it is also to be seen that the oppressions of the 
British king and Parliament led to the dissolution of the 
union with England and the organization of the American 
Republic. But there were men who rested not in the com- 
pact with kings, nor had faith in the arbitrary line between 
prerogative and popular rights. Said James Otis, with the 
voice of inspiration : " Liberty is the gift of God and cannot 
be annihilated. Old Magna Charta," said he, " was not the 
beginning of all things, nor did it rise on the borders of chaos 
out of the unformed mass. A time may come when Parlia- 
ment shall declare every American charter void, but the 
natural, inherent and inseparable rights of the colonists will 
remain, and whatever becomes of charters can never be abol- 
ished till the general conflagration." 



1 6 The Progress of American ludepeudetiee. 

The attachment of the people to the crown was sincere, 
as sincere as their hostility to the claims of Parliament. 

Said Franklin, ** No people were ever known more truly 
loyal, and universally so as to their sovereigns ; the Protes- 
tant succession in the House of Hanover, was their idol." 
Said Massachusetts a century before the bonds of union were 
broken tinally, " Let our government live, our patent live, 
our magistrates live, our laws and liberties live, our religious 
enjoyments li\e, so shall we all have yet further cause to say 
from our hearts, let the king live forever.'" 

The cause of America was the cause of mankind, and by 
wonderful forethought, perseverance and forbearance the 
cause was preserved for one hundred and fifty years until it 
was established finally by the Declaration of Independence. 

If in any generation our fathers had faltered in their sup- 
port of the principles of liberty, or if at any time tliey had 
yielded to the claims of England, the revolution would have 
lost the legal and moral support derived from a long and con- 
sistent defence of popular rights. During all that period the 
Colonies were charged with aiming at independence, and a 
tew men no doubt saw the future greatness of America. 

With them the union with England would cease to be a 
necessity. Mr. Comptroller Weare in a letter to a nobleman, 
written, it is supposed, about the year 1760, said of America, 
*' Xor can the inhabitants fail of sufiicient resources within 
themselves, when thev shall be unanimouslv disposed to at- 
tempt independency. The people are collected from the 
several quarters of Europe and its arts and manufactories 
are daily and successfully introduced by them. The Atlantic 
Ocean washes nearly two thousand miles of tlieir shore, and 
a communication is opened by vast lakes and many navigable 
rivers into an enormous continent, whence human industry 
will doubtless in time know how to draw all tliat may be 
farther wanting to commerce which from such a situation 
may well be extended throughout the world." And again he 
predicts that a thousand leagues distance from the eye and 
strength of the government will suggest to a people accus- 
tomed to more than British Iibert\- the thought of setting up 



'J'lic Progress of American Independence. 17 

for themselves ; and that every principal power in P^urope 
will counlcnance a defection which whenever it hap[)cns must 
necessarily involve all the West India Islands. And he also 
expresses a fear that unless a different policy be adopted the 
northern colonies ripened by a few, a very few, more years to 
maturity, will, a^^reeably to nature's ordinary laws, drop off 
from that stock whence they originally sprung. 

It cannot be doubted that it then appeared to the states- 
men of England that the colonies aimed at independence, 
and the fear of this result was the origin of the effort to sub- 
ject them to the authority of Parliament. 

When we consider the distance of the Colonies from the 
mother country, the delays and perils of navigation in sailing 
vessels, the population and resources of th.e Colonies in 1760, 
and when we consider the experience of the colonists in Ind- 
ian warfare and the hardships of frontier life, it would now 
seem that wisdom should have dictated an adjustment of the 
controversy by which the Colonies would have been con- 
nected with the Realm only by their allegiance to the crown. 

The time had not arrived, however, when those who were 
accustomed to the exercise of power were willing to yield it 
to argument or to the demands of those who claimed by nat- 
ural right. 

For many years previous to 1770 the British Government 
maintained a spy in America named Chalmers. In one of 
his letters he asserts that the Colonies had a settled purpose 
to acquire direct independence throughout every reign from 
the epoch of the British revolution in 1688. Again he writes 
that in the time of Governor Winthrop the statute and com- 
mon laws of England were no more regarded in Massachu- 
setts than in Germany and France. Nor is his statement 
altogether false though tainted with prejudice when he says, 
Massachusetts " has extended her jurisdiction over the 
provinces of New Hampshire and Maine, upon such pre- 
tences as power will always find ; established a mint at Bos- 
ton, which is everywhere erected by sovereignty alone ; and 
entered into treaties with foreign nations i^'Jio (sic) sought her 
assistance since their weaker plantations feared her power." 
2 



1 8 TJic Progress of American Indcpendcjice. 

One Major John Child published a pamphlet in 1647' 
called " New England's Jonas Cast np in Lojidoji.'" 

Speaking of Winslow who was then the agent of Massa- 
chusetts in England, Child said : " Mark, reader, his great 
boasting that they are growing into a nation ; high conceits 
of a nation breed high thoughts of themselves, which make 
them usually term themselves a state ; call the people there 
their subjects ; unite four governments together without any 
authority from the king and parliament, and then term them- 
selves the United Colonies." 

In 171 1 Governor Hunter, of the New York Province, 
wrote thus : " Now the mask is thrown off: — The delegates 
have called in question the Council's share in the Legislature, 
trumped up an inherent right, declared the powers granted 
by His Majesty's Letters Patent to be against law and have 
but one short step to make towards what I am unwilling to. 
name." 

The London Board of Trade, established to check the 
spirit of independence declared that "the inhabitants are en- 
deavoring to wrest the small remains of power out of the 
hands of the crown and to become independent of the mother 
country." 

On the other hand the colonists denied with spirit the 
justness of these attacks upon their loyalty. The Congress of 
1774 said in their address to the people of England : " You 
have been told that we are seditious, impatient of government 
and desirous of incfependency. Be assured that these are 
not facts, but calumnies." But the real issue was avoided. 
The British Government was engaged in the work of sub- 
jecting the colonies to the jurisdiction of Parliament, while 
the Colonies were denying and evading that jurisdiction while 
they asserted their loyalty to the sovereign ; and it was only 
when the king lent himself to the policy of parliamentary 
supremacy that the colonists withdrew their allegiance to the 
crown. 

By observing closely the principles on which the contest 
rested it will be seen that the acts of the colonists, which 
were construed by the British agents and ministry as acts of 



The Progress of Auieriean Indepeudenee. 19 

independence, were but the natural results of the govern- 
ments that the colonists had set up and which in their opin- 
ion were warranted by the charters that the sovereigns had 
granted. 

They legislated for America, but at the same time they 
acknowledged their allegiance to the king. But this recog- 
nition was no evidence of a purpose to submit to the authority 
of Parliament. Naturally, however, the advocates of parlia- 
mentary supremacy charged the Colonies with aiming at in- 
dependence. 

We ought also to consider that from 1 620 to 1770 a great 
change took place in England. 

In the first era the House of Commons was destitute of 
authority comparatively. In the reigns of Henry the Eighth 
and of Elizabeth it had struggled for existence, but in the 
time of George the Third it had acquired the chief power of 
the realm. In the latter period the monarch had lost many 
of his prerogatives, some by a formal surrender, some by the 
Act of Settlement of 1688, and others had been silently re- 
linquished from respect to the opinions of the people. We 
are to consider also that the opportunities for transatlantic 
communication were less frequent than they now are, and 
that neither party had an interest in seeking or making ex- 
planations while an issue could be avoided. From 1630 to 
1760 each party pursued its own policy, not, however, without 
many and serious conflicts ; but the extension of the colonial 
system, by the acquisition of Canada, precipitated events 
and compelled England to enforce its pretensions at any cost. 
Some of the writers of that day maintained that the annex- 
ation of Canada tended to the independence of the whole 
body of the American Colonies, while others asserted that 
the politic French minister, Vergennes, had a purpose of 
producing that result when he assented to the cession. 

Dr. Franklin felt obliged to interfere, and with his accus- 
tomed ingenuity he refuted the alarmists, but the result 
showed that for once the philosopher was in the wrong. Dr. 
Franklin was a moderate man in his political opinions and he 
did not come early nor hastily into the plan of independence. 



20 TJie Progress of American Independence. 

He thought that England, when hard pressed, would grant a 
right of representation in the imperial parliament, and this 
concession would have been satisfactory to him, although the 
arrangement would not have been accepted by the mass of 
his countrymen. It happened, however, that as early as 
1765 he had doubts whether England would make any con- 
cessions, and in October, 1775, he regarded a separation as in- 
evitable. 

The controversy was further embarrassed by the manu- 
facturing and commercial interests of the Colonies. Laws for 
the regulation of commerce were classed as external, and al- 
though the Colonies did not concede to Parliament the right 
to impose customs duties, they did submit to such imposi- 
tions for periods of time and that without protest. Many of 
the laws of Parliament were, however, disregarded. Manu- 
factures were encouraged by local legislation, regulations 
that tended to promote commerce were adopted, differential 
duties were laid in South Carolina, and shipbuilding was so 
encouraged and practised in the northern colonies that the 
carpenters upon the Thames complained to the government. 
Friends of America replied that the carpenters might as well 
complain of Bristol or Plymouth in England and thus the 
matter ended. 

At the close of the French war England entered syste- 
matically upon a policy whose object was the establishment 
of the supremacy of Parliament over the Colonies of North 
America. For one hundred and thirty years this supremacy 
had been denied whenever the claim was presented. In that 
time manufactures and commerce, although borne down by 
the weight of legislative restrictions, had so increased as to 
arrest the attention of the ministry and the Board of Trade, 
and excite the prejudices of the laborers upon the Thames 
and in the manufactories. The population of the thirteen 
Colonies then estimated at two and a half million had doubled 
by natural increase every twenty-five years, and it was then 
certain that it would be largely augmented by immigration 
from Europe. 

This population was better fed and better clothed 



The Progress of American Independence. 21 

than the corresponding classes in England. The inhabi- 
tants of the Colonies had acquired great experience in the 
Indian wars, the siege of Louisbourg, and the invasion of 
Canada. Their bravery was unquestioned. The future great- 
ness of America had been predicted, its natural resources 
had in a degree been unfolded. 

England was burthened with debt and she thought that 
America might be compelled to contribute to its payment. 
The first question was this ; Has Parliament a right to legis- 
late for America? An affirmative answer suggested a sec- 
ond ; What shall be the character of that legislation? In re- 
gard to the first question it ought not to have been expected 
that ex parte opinions, whether accompanied by a show of 
power or not, would lead to an amicable adjustment of the 
controversy. The only ground of hope was in negotiation 
and this appears not to have been thought of. England pro- 
ceeded to legislate and upon the question of policy she made 
a most fatal mistake. With sole reference to her own inter- 
ests she should have exercised the power that she assumed in 
the least offensive way. She should have so legislated that 
in equity no issue could have been made with her acts. But, 
on the contrary, guided, apparently, by an insensate lust of 
power she passed laws which would have kindled rebellion if 
the right of Parliament had been undisputed. For the pur- 
pose of aiding the officers in the collection of the revenue an 
old and obsolete law was revived under which writs, called 
writs of assistance, were granted. 

By these writs the agents of the government were 
empowered to search ships, shops, houses and stores. They 
were in fact general search warrants. The first application 
was from the collector of the port of Salem, Massachusetts. 
The Court hesitated. The merchants employed Thatcher 
and James Otis to resist the application. The writ was 
granted, but the speech of Otis so excited the people that 
John Adams, fifty years afterwards, declared that " American 
Independence was then and there born." In the series of 
offensive laws first came the Stamp Act, then a declaration 
that Parliament had a right to legislate for the Colonies in all 



22 The Progress of Aviericaji Indcpcjidencc. 

cases whatsoever, then the act for shutting up the Port of 
Boston, then the act for altering the charter and government 
of Massachusetts Bay, an act for the better administration of 
justice, an act to estabUsh the Roman CathoHc reHgion in the 
Province of Quebec, an act for quartering the army upon the 
people, and various acts for raising a revenue. 

The Stamp Act was met by marked opposition in all the 
Colonies, and in some of them the people adopted measures 
of injustice and violence. 

It was determined on all hands that the stamps should not 
be landed, and that no one should hold the office of agent. 
Those who accepted were compelled to resign. It was in 
vain that these officials claimed exemption from all responsi- 
bility for the existence of the statute, or that they set forth 
as an excuse that if they did not perform the service other 
persons, less acceptable, would be appointed in their places. 
The people's ears were closed, there was no alternative but 
resignation. 

In New York a gallows was erected in the park of the 
present City Hall and on it Governor Colden was hung in 
effigy ; handbills were circulated warning those who sold or 
used stamped paper that their persons, houses and effects 
were in peril, and the house of Major James, the commander 
of the King's Artillery, was sacked by the mob and the 
colors of his regiment were carried away by the excited 
crowd. 

Finally the stamp agent resigned and the stamps were 
delivered to the mayor and corporation of the city of New 
York, with the advice of His Majesty's Council, unanimously 
given, and the concurrence of the commander-in-chief of the 
king's forces. 

In Boston the supporters of the ministry and of the Stamp 
Act were hung in effigy on a tree afterwards known as 
"Liberty Tree" which stood at the corner of Essex and 
Washington Streets. Oliver, the Secretary of the Province and 
stamp distributor, was frightened into resignation. Jonathan 
Mayhew, the minister of the West Church, preached a violent 
sermon against the Stamp Act and its supporters, and the 



The Progress of American Indcpendoice. 23 

next day the house of the Governor was broken into and its 
contents were destroyed. 

Apparently, the pubh'c sentiment condemned these viola- 
tions of law and order, but the rioters, though known, were 
suffered to go unpunished. 

The nature of the opposition to the Stamp Act is illus- 
trated by the proceedings in Connecticut. Jared IngersoU 
was appointed Stamp Master, and, immediately, he was 
required to resign. A friend, when endeavoring to con- 
ciliate the people said, " Had you not rather that these 
duties would be collected by your brethren than by for- 
eigners ? " 

" No, vile miscreant, indeed we had not," said one, " if 
your father must die is there no defect in filial duty in be- 
coming his executioner, that the hangman's part of the es- 
tate may remain in the family ? " "If the ruin of your coun- 
try is decreed are you free from blame in taking part in the 
plunder ? " 

" The act is so contrived," said IngersoU, " as to make it 
your interest to buy the stamps. When I undertook the of- 
fice I intended a service to you." 

" Stop advertising your wares until they come safe at 
market," he was answered. " The two first letters of his 
name," said one, "are those of the traitor of old. It was 
decreed our Saviour should suffer ; but was it better for Ju- 
das Iscariot to betray him, so that the price of his blood 
might be saved by his friends ? " 

After much equivocation and with the fear of death upon 
him IngersoU shouted Liberty and Property, three times and 
then resigned his office. The mob spirit evoked by the 
Stamp Act soon subsided and a calm determined purpose of 
resistance took its place. .Surrounded by these violent and 
exciting scenes the dejected ones said, " North American 
Liberty is dead." " She is dead," said those of more faith, 
"but happily she has left one son, the child of her bosom 
prophetically named Independence, now the hope of all when 
he shall come of age." 

" I am clear on this point," said Mayhew, " that no peo- 



24 TJie Progress of American bidependence. 

pie are under a religious obligation to be slaves, if they are 
able to set themselves at liberty." 

This was in 1765 and from that time forth the spirit and 
purpose of independence animated and controlled the repre- 
sentative men and the organs of public sentiment in every 
part of the country. It was during the existence of the 
Stamp Act and pending the measures of oppression which 
followed its repeal, that declarations were made and meas- 
ures adopted of the greatest importance to the cause of 
American Independence. 

It was then that Patrick Henry, speaking for the Assem- 
bly of Virginia declared " that every attempt to vest the 
power of taxation in any person or persons whatsoever, other 
than the said Assembly has a manifest tendency to destroy 
British as well as American freedom ; " that he proposed by 
resolution that the Colony of Virginia be immediately put 
into a state of defence ; and that a committee should be ap- 
pointed to prepare a plan for embodying, arming and disci- 
plining such a number of men as may be sufficient for that 
purpose ; that in the memorable debate on the resolution, 
in the language if not with the spirit of prophecy, he de- 
clared it vain to indulge the fond hope of peace and recon- 
ciliation, that an appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts was 
all that was left ; that John Morin Scott of New York said if 
the mother country deny to the Colonies the " right of mak- 
ing their own laws and disposing of their own property by 
representatives of their own choosing then the connection 
between them ought to cease and sooner or later it must in- 
evitably cease ; " that the Sons of Liberty of the City of New 
York as early as the seventh day of January, 1766, forecast 
the American Union in the declaration that " there was safety 
for the Colonies only in the firm union of the whole ; " that the 
Assembly of New York declared that that "colony lawfully 
and constitutionally has and enjoys an internal legislature of 
its own, in which the crown and the people of this colony are 
constitutionally represented, and the power and authority of 
the said legislature cannot lawfully or constitutionally be sus- 
pended, abridged, abrogated, or annulled by any power, au- 



*•* 



TJic Progress of American Independence. 25 

thority, or prerogative whatsoever ; " that the committee of 
one hundred of the City of New York upon the receipt of the 
news of the massacre on Lexington Green resolved " that all 
the horrors of civil war would never compel America to sub- 
mit to taxation by authority of Parliament ; " that the Assem- 
bly demanded " exemption from the burthens of ungranted, 
involuntary taxes as the grand principle of every free State," 
and as " without such a right vested in the people themselves 
there can be no liberty, no happiness, no security ; " that Mr. 
Jefferson said, " We want neither inducement nor power to 
declare and assert a separation ; we are reduced to the al- 
ternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the 
tyranny of irritable masters or resistance by force ; " that the 
county " of Hanover, Virginia, instructed its delegates to as- 
sent to such measures as would produce the hearty union of all 
their countrymen and sister colonies ; " that William Hooper, 
of North Carolina, early in 1774 declared that " the Colonies 
are striding fast to independency and will ere long build an 
empire on the ruins of Britain, will adopt its constitution 
purged of its impurities, and from an experience of its de- 
fects, will guard against those evils which have wasted its 
vigor and brought it to an untimely end ; " that the same 
State, the 12th day of April 1776, empowered its delegates 
to " declare independency ;" that Joseph Hawley of Massa- 
chusetts asserted that " independence was the only way to 
union and harmony ; " that General Greene in 1775 recom- 
mended a Declaration of Independence ; that Samuel Adams 
said, " I am perfectly satisfied of the necessity of a public 
and explicit Declaration of Independence ; " that the press of 
Philadelphia declared that " none in this day of liberty will 
say that duty binds us to yield obedience to any man or body 
of men, forming part of the British Constitution, when they 
exceed the limits prescribed by that Constitution ; that the 
Stamp Act is unconstitutional and no more obligatory than 
a decree of the Divan of Turkey ; " that the town of Boston 
said, — and may their words be remembered, — " We are not 
afraid of poverty, but we disdain slavery ; " that the county 
of Suffolk in 1774 resolved, " that no obedience is due from 



.26 TJie Prog7'css of American Independcticc. 

this province to either or any part of the obnoxious acts ; " 
that Middlesex, speaking for the men of Lexington, Concord 
and Bunker Hill, said " we are sensible that he can never die 
too soon who lays down his life in support of the laws and 
liberties of his country ; " that the Continental Congress of 
1774 sent forth its immortal remonstrances, memorials, mani- 
festoes and addresses to the king, to Parliament, to the peo- 
ple of England, to the people of Ireland, to their brethren of 
Canada and to the Colonies of America ; that ancient hostili- 
ties were forgotten, that local barriers were broken down, the 
spirit of union fostered and the Colonies made one in pur- 
pose and in destiny ; and, finally, that the formal and au- 
thoritative Declaration of Independence introduced an era 
of Freedom, not for this country and people only, but, ulti- 
mately, for all who shall speak the English language. 

Thus does it appear from this array of facts, gathered from 
an era of a century and a half, that the Independence of the 
American Colonies had a slow growth, but its progress was 
perceptible and from the year 1764 there could have been no 
ground for doubt as to the ultimate result. When the Dec- 
laration came the country was prepared to give it a substan- 
tial if not a united support. 

The controversy and the contest were carried on by young 
men and by men in the meridian period of life. Jefferson 
was in his thirty-fourth year. Washington was his senior 
by only eleven years, and it is said of the signers of the 
Declaration that their average age was less than forty 
years. 

It is a remarkable, but a well authenticated phenomenon 
in human history that when the minds of many men are di- 
rected to one subject they often arrive at similar results and 
find similar modes of expression. This peculiarity has been 
observed in purely scientific researches, and it is more 
probable that it should have existed in the controversy pre- 
ceding the independence of these Colonies. It is not a mar- 
vel then, nor in disparagement of Mr. Jefferson or of the 
Congress of 1776, that the historian is compelled to admit 
that the Declaration of Independence is but the last and 



Tlic Progress of American Lidependence. 27 

best expression of the sentiment and purposes of Colonial 
America. 

The rights and grievances of the Colonies had been set 
forth by the Congress of 1774 ; the doctrine of the equality 
of all men, not as a theory, merely, but in the substance of 
their natural, political rights, had been enunciated by Otis ; 
and the citizens of Mecklenburg, North Carolina, had antici- 
pated the Declaration of Jefferson and in some respects its 
exact language, and yet there is no reason to believe that 
the substance of the document was known to any member of 
Congress and there is much evidence that neither Mr. Jeffer- 
son nor any one of his colleagues of the committee was aware 
of its existence. 

The great merit of the Declaration of Independence is in 
this : That it asserted v/ith unrivalled precision and power what 
the country had resolved and what it was prepared to main- 
tain. It proclaimed the natural rights of men ; it embodied 
the history of Colonial i\merica and it set forth the nature of 
the oppressions that the colonists had endured, the sacrifices 
they had made, the loyalty they had exhibited, their poverty 
and forbearance all crowned by a statement of their purposes 
in the future. The Colonies were represented by Mr. Jef- 
ferson of Virginia, Mr. Robert R. Livingston of New York, 
John Adams of Massachusetts, Dr. Franklin of Pennsyl- 
vania and Roger Sherman of Connecticut. The draft, as 
prepared by Mr. Jefferson was as remarkable for what was 
omitted finally, upon the suggestion of Georgia and South 
Carolina, as for what was preserved. As prepared by Mr. 
Jefferson and agreed to by the Committee the King of Great 
Britain was denounced for the crime of perpetuating the traffic 
in African slaves. In the year 1774 North Carolina resolved 
not to import nor purchase slaves : the County of Hano\er, 
Virginia, had pronounced the African trade in slaves " most 
dangerous to the virtue and welfare of the country ; " the Con- 
gress of 1774 had discountenanced the trade in slaves, and 
James Otis, with nervous eloquence, had denounced the 
whole system of human bondage. 

As we turn from the consideration of the main theme of 



28 The Progress of American Independence. 

the occasion a restatement of the leading thoughts may not 
be inappropriate : 

1. When the colonists laid the foundations of their re- 
spective governments they asserted those doctrines of political 
and personal freedom which constituted, finally, the legal and 
moral basis of the revolution ; and although in their weak- 
ness they submitted to acts which in their view were oppres- 
sive they never recognized the authority of the British Par- 
liament, but upon their records and during a period of nearly 
a century and a half they asserted and as far as practicable 
they maintained their independence as political organizations. 

2. The laws which they annulled or evaded were enacted 
by an assembly whose authority they never acknowledged, 
and in Avhich they were not represented. 

3. Our fathers were careful to maintain their loyalty to 
the king as the sovereign of the British Empire and to per- 
form all their duties as members of that Empire that the in- 
justice of others might not have root in their own errors 
and wrongs. 

4. The American Union did not originate in the present 
Constitution, nor even in the Articles of Confederation ; but 
it is elementary in the history of the country, and, as far as 
we can judge, it is essential to our form of liberty. 

From 1643, when the Union was formed between Mas- 
sachusetts, New Plymouth, Connecticut and New Haven for 
" their own mutual safety and welfare," with the name, TJie 
United Colonies of New England, there seems never to have 
been a moment when the idea of Union did not exist in the 
public mind. Union was the necessity of their weakness as 
it now is the emblem of our origin and the source of our 
strength. 

I turn now from this array of ancient facts that in conclu- 
sion I may direct your thoughts to some of the possibilities 
of the future. We are now passing from the first to the 
second century of our national existence. In 1790 the 
United States had less than four million inhabitants, and in 
1890 our population will be largely in excess of sixty million. 
We rank as the third nation on the globe, if we consider only 



TJic Progress of Avierican Indcpendoice. 29 

the number of persons dwelling upon contiguous territory, 
and in less than half a century we shall stand in the second 
place. 

Our population is at least fifteen times as great as it was a 
hundred years ago, but we must not assume upon the same 
ratio of increase for the next century. Relatively there will 
be a decrease in the number of immigrants, and it is quite 
probable that the spirit of enterprise or the love of adventure 
will carry away the successors of our frontier population to 
Africa and South America, the continents of the future. At 
the present rate of increase our population in the year two 
thousand would exceed eight hundred million, and if the 
ratio of increase should fall to fifteen per cent, in each 
decennial period the census for the year two thousand will 
show an aggregate of about two hundred and eighty million. 
Whether so vast a population can be sustained within our 
present limits is a problem of the future, but for one I enter- 
tain no doubt that the sustaining force of the United States 
is adequate to the support of four hundred million inhabitants 
without any impairment of the enjoyments and comforts of 
social and domestic life. If we assume the habitable area of 
the United States to be two million and five hundred thousand 
square miles, an average population of three hundred to the 
square mile, the present average of the State of Massachusetts, 
would give an aggregate of seven hundred and fifty million 
souls. And our capacity may be further measured by con- 
sidering the fact that if the present inhabitants of the United 
States could be transferred to the State of Texas the average 
would not exceed three hundred persons to the square mile. 

And these statements even do not measure and limit the 
possibilities of comfortable existence on this continent. The 
diversification of human pursuits, due to science, art and a wise 
public policy, is making constant and appreciable additions to 
the capacity of this globe to sustain human life. The sixty 
million within our limits are better fed, better clothed, better 
housed than were the two and a half million who inaugurated 
the Revolutionary War. 

Popular education enlarges the views and elevates the 



30 TJie Progress of American Independence. 

aspirations of the masses of men and women, and it also in- 
creases their opportunities for advancement and comfort in 
life. 

We may also rely with much confidence upon the sim- 
plicity of our system of land titles and the facility with which 
the soil may be conveyed from one party to another. With 
the increase of population and of wealth there will be an in- 
creasing tendency to make investments in land, and conse- 
quently there will be an ever increasing peril from agrarian 
controversies. These may be controlled in some degree if 
not averted altogether by taking security against the existence 
of land monopolies, and by limiting the possessions of busi- 
ness corporations, of educational, charitable and eleemosynary 
institutions, and of churches to such areas as may be neces- 
sary to the performance of the duties imposed upon them. 
In all countries the landless classes are the dangerous classes, 
and it is, therefore, a wise public policy to encourage the 
possession of land even though the holdings should be small 
and in value relatively insignificant. Every title deed is se- 
curity for the public peace. By the fable of Antaeus we are 
taught that whoever touches the earth becomes strong, and 
by experience we are taught that whoever owns the earth be- 
comes quiet minded and patriotic. 

Henceforth the attention of this country will be withdrawn 
from Europe by degrees, and it will be directed to Canada, 
Mexico, Central and South America and the Continent of 
Asia. In the arts and in manufactures Europe is our com- 
petitor, but, in these departments we are without a rival upon 
this continent. Our future greatness as a manufacturing and 
trading nation must rest chiefly upon the kindly dispositions 
of the Asiatic peoples, upon the development of this continent 
and the constant friendship of the states and communities be- 
tween the two great oceans. 

I am confident that we have, as a nation, passed the 
period when the maxim — " in peace prepare for war," — was a 
necessary condition of our public life. First of all we should 
never indulge the thought of acquiring territory by aggressive 
means. Not that an honorable extension of the territory of the 



TJie Progress of American Independence. 3r 

Union would be unwise under all circumstances, but a war for 
the enlargement of our dominion would be an unjust war in the 
very nature of the case. Our position and influence in the af- 
fairs of the world, for all purposes consistent with the rights of 
other nations, depend no longer upon the exhibition of mili- 
tary force either upon the sea or upon the land. We are 
separated by vast oceans from the great powers of the world ; 
our trade is so valuable that neither England, France nor 
Germany can forego its advantages for a single month ; and 
our resources in men and in money are so ample that we may 
rely confidently upon the forbearance of those rulers from 
whom we may not be able even to command respect. 

In this aspect of the future of the Republic I do not accept 
the opinion that a wise public policy requires us to enter 
upon the construction of a seagoing navy in competition with 
the great nations of Europe that exist only under the con- 
stant menace of war. Better will it be for us to employ our 
resources in the construction of small, fast-sailing steamships 
to be employed in the transportation of the mails to and 
from all the principal ports of Central and South America 
and the eastern parts of Asia, thus openin^new avenues 
through which the enterprise and business of the country 
may have free course. 

The time has passed when the fate or the fortunes of na- 
tions were dependent upon naval battles lost or won. For 
the future a war on the ocean is a war on commerce and for 
such a war the heavily armored vessels of great navies are 
worthless utterly. Let science and skill furnish such pro- 
tection to our sea coast cities as science and skill can com- 
mand, but let us abandon the thought of constructing great 
navies at a cost of tens of millions on tens of millions for 
anticipated war on the open sea, or as aids to the conquest 
of foreign lands. Let Republican America, warned' and in- 
structed by the lesson which downtrodden Europe teaches, 
enter upon its second century with the purpose of demon- 
strating the truth that a government in which the people rule 
may be at once peaceful, powerful and just. 



MR -3 8. 






< > s ♦ • 






>s.' 


. 


.^^ 




• '; 


■>^ 














^.. 



.^' 



°^ 









A 



<* 









.>j- 






•^o 






'^_ 









•^ 



.^t^ 



•^q. 



.^^ 






,-Jy' 



y , o « o , ri>. 












.-^' 



-^5:^. 



'b V^ 



-^-0^ 









•o V 



-Jv" 



'^ ■!<> ^' 

a'J^ c ° " * * <*">. 



^°-^. 



V 



.» ^ ^-rj.^* «r "^ ^v ... V « ^^ -^ 






^4>. 






0' 



^o 



,V 



0' 






"^^M!)-^^ 



-^^0^ 



c 



,^^ 



^^ 



<^ 



'/^■i^:':-' 



■;<.. .T^ 



.-Jy 






40. 



\ - 




* 




i' -.■**■ 


' .0^ 


** - 











"* « 


^ ^* A 




< ^ ■> . 


^ s 





' c 










/ 


& "^ " 


•-■^^ 






"^-> 




.^" . 


" " " .» 




^0 


/ : 




0^ 




,;<i' 


^0 


V* : 














0^ 


♦, %. 








^^.V^^ 
•^-^k^ 


^* 




^/ 














c„. 


v\ 


' 


•;/ 




c* 




,**".' 











'# 



K^' 



,-^' 



>o- 






t, 






L^'. 



c/" /. 



.^^' 



•'^'.^^ 



1=^. A 



*^' 












^ov-^ 








:^' % =^- ^^ ^ 


'^ 








'<•;■ ■:■ * *>^ 




\^ ,'>«. » 




"^.^c,^- "^s.V 




--.,v ;. 


.^^* 


° " " * "^^ o"^ '"■ ' ' 


^^, 






,.-^^^ .^■. 




"-^. 




t- o^ ^; 




^^ 




^^ 




'^^. 




'^^ .<'■"' "*- 


.:^' 


•/- 




-^ .V 








'<r"r 








,<^ ■^. 







.<}■' 






A^'*• 



.-i.'' 






DOBBS BROS. 

UBRARV BIMOINO 



ST. AUGUSTINE 

32084 ''' 



.-^^ 




01 1 698 492 1 



